On 21/11/2007, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote: Here's a blog post: http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/11/19/a-fascinating-license-question/ Here's the matching forum thread, where I certainly get the impression Dr Sanger's pushing for -NC: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1377.0.html At which point they immediately become less interesting and wesay "oh well." - d.

I suppose over the opposition of other people there, or there would have been no need for the discussion. Let's see if a community project, or just his own. On 11/20/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

David Gerard wrote: ... CZ have always promised to be _open content_ and [[open content]] can be -NC. At least WP says it can. As a non-profit project isn't Wikipedia free to use NC if it wishes, though re-users would have to be warned. -- luke

Stephen Bain wrote: Thanks for explaining. Then to conform exactly to the GFDL re-users must forgo flagged CZ content, e.g. just as they forgo flagged EDP 'non-free' content at the moment? TIA

Hoi, Citizendium has created a fine mess. There are several people that I know that refuse to have anything to do with Citizendium because of the lack of transparency as to their license. Also with Larry's latest blog about this subject he raises doubt yet again as to what license Citizendium will use. At this moment it is not, as far as I know licensed at all. Now you come along and say .. nah, NC is not an option we cannot even re-license our content. Were we to do that we might as well start a new project. Well actually, does this mean that you cannot license your content at all? Thanks, GerardM On Nov 21, 2007 11:53 AM, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew Gray wrote: By the way... Whilst I see pretty well that getting the "ok" of all participants to a Wikipedia article might be asking for trouble, why would projects such as Wikibooks or Wikiversity not propose the dual license beginning today ? When a book is started today by a new group, or when a book had only a limited number of authors, this issue is not an issue. Why restricting to GFDL license only these projects ? Ant

Andrew Gray wrote: Nod. And I remember that some were complaining at that time that it would cause compatibility issues between wikinews and wikipedia. How much were both projects impacted by this situation ? Ant

The license change that was carried out to take Wikinews to CC-BY-2.5 was only possible because we aren't continually updating articles. Articles are published on Wikinews and become fixed shortly thereafter. In a case like that you can have a cut-off and changeover, which we did. Were you, for example, to want to go that way with Wikibooks you'd need to say, okay cut-off is <date-A>, and every book started before that gets a template added saying it was started before <date-A>, thus remains under the GFDL. I can't see any way to do that on Wikipedia where virtually every article is treated as a work in progress. Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Florence Devouard Sent: 21 November 2007 12:56 To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Citizendium License (Was: [EWW] Edit WikipediaWeek) Andrew Gray wrote: ? Nod. And I remember that some were complaining at that time that it would cause compatibility issues between wikinews and wikipedia. How much were both projects impacted by this situation ? Ant _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Brian McNeil ha scritto: What about importing policy pages from, say, Wikipedia? Does Wikinews rewrite them from scratch or license them under GFDL? They're also licensed under GFDL in the other projects. By the way, this was a real discussion I had on IRC with some Wikinewsie, I'd say we shouldn't bother too much but what if some author of a policy page on Wikipedia complains that Wikinews violated his/her copyright by importing the policy page and licensing it with something different from GFDL? Cruccone

It is probably not as well worked out as it should be, there likely should be a template for imported pages and there are a few people point out issues with this from time to time. I'm sure we have something on at least a couple of policy pages saying they were imported from Wikipedia where the license is GFDL. Were someone to take issue with a page having been copied over that would be the response, it would get a note on it that parts were GFDL. I suspect that this issue has not come to prominence because the issue is not in the main namespace but the project namespace. Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Marco Chiesa Sent: 21 November 2007 13:28 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Citizendium License (Was: [EWW]Edit WikipediaWeek) Brian McNeil ha scritto: are the is What about importing policy pages from, say, Wikipedia? Does Wikinews rewrite them from scratch or license them under GFDL? They're also licensed under GFDL in the other projects. By the way, this was a real discussion I had on IRC with some Wikinewsie, I'd say we shouldn't bother too much but what if some author of a policy page on Wikipedia complains that Wikinews violated his/her copyright by importing the policy page and licensing it with something different from GFDL? Cruccone _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I agree completely, there would be a lot of work putting templates in the right places. For Wikinews every article written before the changeover had to have a template added. Assuming Wikibooks were to say they wanted to change license you'd have a big project on your hands because people wouldn't want their GFDL stuff to become frozen in time and cease being edited. If they accepted the reasons for the license change you'd be rewriting your books to put them under the new license. Wikibooks could make a switch, but it would be a real challenge. I can imagine having some pages started before the cut off having warning templates that contributions are GFDL but there's a start-from-scratch-and-rewrite version under CC-BY-2.5 [[here]]. Tricky judgement call on when you switch the main article with the sub-page and move to a template that says "This book is CC-BY-2.5, an older version under the GFDL license is available [[here]]." This may sound overly complex, but in line with Wiki philosophy I hate seeing useful information destroyed. Of course, I am unaware of any drive within Wikibooks to change the license. I guess what I and several other people on the list are saying it is they are the only obvious case that could pull the same move as Wikinews. And yes, it would be a disruptive, difficult and messy period for the project. Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Gray Sent: 21 November 2007 13:34 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Citizendium License (Was: [EWW] EditWikipediaWeek) On 21/11/2007, Brian McNeil &lt;brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org&gt; wrote: the is Quite - even were you to try saying "all articles created after Date X are License A, all articles created before are License B", you'd immediately run into trouble with people wanting to merge or transfer material across. It really depends on how granular the projects are - how much each page or group of pages stands on their own. It seems like this ought to be workable for Wikibooks, to deem that this book is CC-BY and that one GFDL... ...*but* even if it is theoretically practical, it's going to be a hellishly big headache to administrate! Licenses are really something that needs to be established on a project-wide level, I fear. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Depends on the jurisdiction, I believe - "moral rights" and all that.

On 21/11/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen &lt;cimonavaro(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The key thing with moral rights is that you often can't waive them, so they apply to everything, including both PD and CC-BY, so what you're saying doesn't make sense. Moral rights can't be more restrictive than CC-BY, since they apply to CC-BY just as with any other license.